When I saw the headline above in the New York Times, my heart lept with joy. At last, we are getting serious about the war on terror!
Then I realized that the lawyers were going to Guantánamo to serve as legal representatives for the detained thugs. They weren't going as prisoners. My heart stopped leaping.
Ah, well. Maybe someday.
A right-wing, xenophobic publication yesterday published a feature story on Mexican immigrants, insinuating that our immigration policies (or lack thereof) are exploiting the poor and vulnerable:
...But for Juan Manuel Peralta, a 34-year-old illegal immigrant who worked [at a diner] for five years until he was fired last May, and for many of the other illegal Mexican immigrants in the back, restaurant work today is more like a dead end. They are finding the American dream of moving up far more elusive than it was for [diner owner] Mr. Zannikos. Despite his efforts to help them, they risk becoming stuck in a permanent underclass of the poor, the unskilled and the uneducated.They even found a Hispanic-hating immigration "reformer" who thinks Mexicans don't have what it takes to make it in the U.S.:That is not to suggest that the nearly five million Mexicans who, like Mr. Peralta, are living in the United States illegally will never emerge from the shadows. Many have, and undoubtedly many more will. But the sheer size of the influx - over 400,000 a year, with no end in sight - creates a problem all its own. It means there is an ever-growing pool of interchangeable workers, many of them shunting from one low-paying job to another. If one moves on, another one - or maybe two or three - is there to take his place.
...Of all immigrants in New York City, officials say, Mexicans are the poorest, least educated and least likely to speak English.Can you believe those people for writing and saying such things?The failure or success of this generation of Mexicans in the United States will determine the place that Mexicans will hold here in years to come, Mr. Sarukhan said, and the outlook is not encouraging.
"They will be better off than they could ever have been in Mexico," he said, "but I don't think that's going to be enough to prevent them from becoming an underclass in New York."
Okay, joke's over. Both passages appeared in a front-page story in the New York Times called "15 Years on the Bottom Rung." Mr. Sarukhan is Arturo Sarukhan, the Mexican consul general in New York, and thus probably not a "Hispanic-hater."
Overlooking the manic obsessions of the Times' worldview (class, race, etc.), you can see the writer is uncomfortable with the illegal immigrants' plight. It is clearly exploitative to take advantage of poor people's poverty and allow them to take low-wage, often dangerous jobs, and the article conveys their precarious position vividly.
Catholic Light readers may recall this critique of the USCCB's less-than-satisfactory position on immigration, which said in part that
High immigration levels hurt the poor and the vulnerable, and are thus immoral. How do they do that? Through supply and demand: immigrants, legal or illegal, flood certain parts of the labor market, driving down the price of labor. Businesses love that, but it ends up screwing over the people who were already in the U.S., including less recent immigrants. If these labor market segments were more static, businesses would be forced to train these workers, give them better equipment, and pay them more.Looks likt the NYT is catching up with CL!
The following is a chronology of me watching Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason. All times are approximate.
Movie Start minus 3 minutes, 23 seconds — Why is there a commercial for "Joey" before the movie? Is that show still on? If so, why?
MS-2:09 — Another television ad, this time for a DVD set of "Will and Grace." I like movie previews, but what's with the TV ads? Man, that Jack guy is annoying. He's kind of a Stepin Fetchit for the gays.
MS+1:04 — Finally, the movie is starting. I forget, what was the original Bridget Jones about? All I remember is her kicking drug dealers' butts and wearing a big afro. Oh, wait...that was "Cleopatra Jones."
MS+10:58 — Already bored. Not a good sign.
MS+18:34 — Renée Zellweger looks completely dreadful. Horrible hair and bloated, unhealthy-looking body; ill-fitting and unflattering clothes. I used to think people were being superficial when they commented on actors' looks, but I've changed my mind. They're supposed to look good, or at least not bad. That's their job. God made the human form beautiful, and there's nothing wrong with appreciating it.
MS+22:27 — Not only is she bad looking, she makes it worse with her personality. She keeps talking about sex — not romance, but the act itself, and how wonderful it is that she's found someone to copulate with her. Needy, neurotic, paranoid and charmless...what man wouldn't want that?
Her boyfriend, Colin Firth, would be screaming and running away from her if he were a real person.
MS+24:20 — Hugh Grant! Finally! I want to dislike you because you are far more suave and handsome than I am, but you are hilarious and charming. Surely you will make this movie more bearable for me.
MS+49:31 — Tomorrow I should clean the garage...I wonder if there will be time to weed the front garden, because it sure needs it...does Chris need his air compressor back?...I think it's time for a glass of port....
MS+1:00:09 — I have now spent an entire hour watching this vulgar slattern. Where are you, Hugh? Come back and do something amusing!
MS+1:17:02 — She is not leading those Thai girls in a song-and-dance number to Madonna's "Like a Virgin." I'm going to the bathroom.
MS+1:31:51 — Why are Hugh and Colin fighting over that woman? Now Paige is telling me that this is like the fight from the first movie, of which I have almost no recollection.
MS+1:43: — At last, the end credits. I have no problem with "date movies" per se, nor do I hate the "chick flick" proper, but this movie was truly a pandering piece of tripe. I wish we had watched "The Incredibles" again, and I bet Paige does, too.
Suppose someone you know died, and his surviving family didn't talk about his life. You went to the wake, but the only thing they did was read off a short list of attributes: lived in Topeka, Kansas; worked as an insurance adjuster; was married with three kids; dead at 49.
Nobody prayed for the departed soul, nor did anyone try to publicly comfort the family. No eulogies were delivered; there were no amusing anecdotes about the deceased, or heartfelt recollections. If this is was supposed to honor a man's life, you would probably think that reducing him to the facts listed on a credit application was inadequate, if not disrespectful.
"Nightline" is pretty much doing the same thing, only they're just sticking to the names of the dead. Powerline quotes Arthur Chrenkoff:
Ted Koppel will be again reading out the names of American soldiers fallen in Iraq and Afghanistan sice last year. I've got a modest proposal to Ted Koppel and "Nightline": why don't you read one day the names and show the pictures of the 170,000 or so American servicemen and women stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan who every day are working their hardest to ensure that democracy takes root, terrorists are defeated, and these two countries have a chance to build a better future for their people. That might convince a cynic such as myself that you really care for the troops generally, and not just only when they can be cynically used to embarrass the Bush Administration.170,000 is more names than they can cover in an hour, so here's a counter-proposal: why not do an hour on medal winners of Operation Iraqi Freedom?
How about Army Sergeant First Class Paul Ray Smith, who received a Congressional Medal of Honor posthumously for saving 100 of his fellow soldiers, and giving up his life to do it?
Or Marine Sergeant Raphael Peralta, whose last act was to shield his squad from a grenade with his own body?
Or PFC Patrick Miller, who singlehandedly wiped out an Iraqi mortar position to stop them from blowing up a fuel truck and his fellow soldiers?
One would think those stories are eminently more watchable than a laundry list of names. The last time he did this, Koppel insisted he was "honoring the troops" or some platitude. I don't watch "Nightline," so maybe they have done a multitude of positive stories about U.S. troops. If so, they have gone unnoticed by the sources I read. (Chime in if you watch the show regularly.)
If not, then reducing human lives to their names and the fact of their demise is disingenuous. When we want to honor the memory of our loved ones, we talk about them, not just their deaths.
This notice comes from a reader -- we're not endorsing it, but the event sounds like something we would like to attend:
TWENTIETH ANNUAL BALL FOR LIFE
Benefiting Good Counsel Homes which serves women and their children in crisis pregnancy situations.
HONORING
Peggy Noonan and Ambassador Faith Whittlesey
Honorary Co-chairmen Larry Kudlow & Sean Hannity
Black tie
Friday, June 3, 2005
8:00 pm - 12 midnight
New York Athletic Club
180 Central Park South
New York City
Order tickets here NOW - limited space!
I would bet a bottle of gin that not one in five American adults could tell you what a "filibuster" is. Perhaps one in ten Americans think it's important, and that ten percent is scattered across the political spectrum. This is after weeks of public discussion about the proper use of the filibuster and the "nuclear option" (i.e., voting when the majority decides to vote).
But the chattering classes care about the filibuster, because it is the method by which the Democrats' dwindling minority gets to keep "religious extremists" and pro-lifers off the Federal bench. The Republicans could have given Senator "Ku Klux Klam" Byrd the smackdown he richly deserves, pleased the GOP's most fervent supporters, and made the judiciary more friendly toward economic rights, less friendly toward judge-made law, and possibly made some progress toward stopping the secular sacrament of abortion. The cost? Some nasty editorials in liberal newspapers. But those editorialists hate Republicans anyway, and would find something else nasty to say about them.
Yet a small group of Republicans managed to sell out their party, not to mention the constitutional principle that the Senate has a duty to examine and confirm judicial nominees. Even though they've been in the majority for most of the last decade, the Republicans once again demonstrate that they play like amateurs, and the Democrats play for keeps.
Please consider a prayer request from Tim Ferguson, Catholic Light reader, friend of Pete Vere, and one of the new friends I met when I was in Ottawa earlier this year. His father, William, just discovered that he has lung cancer that has spread to his brain. To make matters worse, Tim's sister Martha is finishing a regimen of chemotherapy for breast cancer, and his mother has just left the hospital because of heart trouble.
May God bless and protect your family from their physical ailments, Tim, and give you comfort as you witness their suffering. I will pray for them in front of the Blessed Sacrament this weekend, and I ask anyone else reading this to do the same.
George Lucas has been drinking from the same fetid waters as the paranoid Left. His political ideas — which sound like they come from a dull 10-year-old — contributed mightily to the shambles he made of "Phantom Menace" and "Attack of the Clones." As I recall, the former movie was about some kind of trade dispute, an interstellar NAFTA without any space-alien equivalent of Ross Perot (assuming, of course, that Ross Perot is not a space alien.)
Here's what he said to the Cannes festival:
"The issue was, how does a democracy turn itself into a dictatorship?" he said.We've discussed this issue at some length here in CL, and as I recall, the only proof anybody could provide for a nascent dictatorship is that the president claims the power to detain Americans fighting against their own government."When I wrote it, Iraq (the U.S.-led war) didn't exist... but the parallels of what we did in Vietnam and Iraq are unbelievable."
He acknowledged an uncomfortable feeling that the United States was in danger of losing its democratic ideals, like in the movie.
"I didn't think it was going to get this close. I hope this doesn't come true in our country."
If you think President Bush is the first president to assert that right, you're wrong. Completely, demonstrably, comprehensively wrong. That idea goes back at least to Abraham Lincoln in the Civil War, who detained several hundred thousand Confederates on his own authority. In World War II, American saboteurs cooperating with German spies were executed after facing a military tribunal, not a Federal judge. The Supreme Court has agreed with this prececent (not that you'd know it from the media coverage). They merely invited the president to send the prisoners before tribunals.
George Lucas is an intellectual flyweight, so his particular words aren't terribly important. But the Left's general paranoia has a very real consequence. Someday, there very well might be a threat to our democracy. The Greeks assumed that all democracies would eventually give way to chaos and then a dictatorship of some form. But if the Left keeps screaming about "DICTATORSHIP" this and "NAZI" that, nobody will listen if indeed it does happen in the United States.
Last week, near the end of my bike ride to work, I spotted hundreds of small white crosses staked in the ground east of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in downtown D.C. Wondering what they were for, I saw a young woman carrying a makeshift sign saying "America in Iraq" that she was preparing to hang someplace.
I immediately swerved across the grass toward two men conversing with each other, obviously discussing the logistics of their display. I stopped my bike about five feet away from them, and they stopped talking and looked at me. One of the men had short gray hair, professional-looking glasses and a baseball hat that said "KENT STATE." The other guy had jeans and a black shirt, and looked like a roadie.
"Did you get permission of the families before you put these up?" I demanded.
Gray Guy started glaring at me and said nothing — since he seemed older and had an air of authority about him, I assumed he was in charge. Black Shirt said no, they didn't need to get permission.
"Are you sure that everybody you're representing here agrees with your point of view? Because I'm absolutely sure that's not true."
No, no, said Black Shirt. This wasn't about pressing a political agenda, it was for the troops. I didn't buy it. You don't put a thousand crosses next to the Vietnam Memorial and then say you have no polical agenda.
"Who's going to protect the innocent people in Iraq if we leave?" I continued. Now Gray Guy was looking like he wanted to kill me. (Clearly, I was wrong: he wasn't in charge at all. I never did figure out why he was there.) Both of them were confused by my question.
"You mean the people who died on 9/11?"
"No, that has nothing to do with this. I'm talking about the innocent Iraqis who get blown up by terrorists every day."
"Are you talking about the 100,000 Iraqi civilians who have died?"
We interrupt this blog entry for a special message to the anti-war crowd: if you're going to pull a number straight out of your nether regions, you should1) make it sound real — try 104,000 or 117,000, anything but a round 100,000;
2) don't use the same freakin' number you used for the Gulf War (and mouthed by Gary Oldman in "Air Force One"); and
3) make the number increase as time goes by! In 2003, you people were already saying we killed 100,000 civilians. Well, surely we've killed at least 200,000 by now, right? I mean, give our boys some credit for diligence at least!
Back to the entry...
We went back and forth. Black Shirt, who introduced himself as Marcus, said he was a former Marine like me, and was "in during the Gulf War" (I'm not sure what he did). He kept insisting that his group was utterly apolitical, and that he didn't want Iraq veterans ending up like a lot of Vietnam veterans. Twenty-five percent of Iraq veterans were returning home with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, he told me. (Which is a funny statistic, because a much smaller percentage of veterans were in actual combat.) In my experience, I replied, the vast majority of Iraq veterans considered it a worthy mission and that I personally considered it an honor to have served.
Marcus asked me to help him put up an American flag while we talked. I asked if it would be displayed respectfully, and he assured me that it would. I said sure, since I was already late for work. Once it was up, I shook hands with him, he gave me a postcard describing their group ("Veterans for Peace L.A.") and I wished him luck with his event, even though we did not agree on many things.
Because Marcus was a cordial and likeable man, I will avoid making snide comments about his group's headquarters of Santa Monica, one of the wealthiest places on the planet (and most liberal). But to return to the reason I pulled over in the first place, I think he and his cohorts are being disingenuous when they claim they have no political agenda. To consider a war properly, you have to consider the objective and ask whether the costs are worth it. Erecting a thousand crosses, without any context, is a falsehood.
If a thousand men have died in order to make a more just peace in the Middle East, and have slain thousands of murderers and thugs bent on oppressing a nation of 25 million, and thus made the people of the United States more secure, then I would say the cost is terrible but worth it. Better to hunt down and kill al Qaeda and their allies in Iraq, humiliating and eliminating their leadership, than to let them attack us again.
Thirty years ago, North Vietnam launched an offensive into the South, despite a promise not to invade. There was no American response, because there were no Americans to respond, the last U.S. forces having been removed in 1973. Just as anti-Communists had predicted, it was a human disaster. Tens of thousands were executed, and hundreds of thousands more were herded into "re-education camps" (a.ka. "political prisons.") Many Vietnamese took to the seas in rickety boats, preferring to risk death rather than live under the Communist regime.
The Left, having engineered the U.S. pullout from Vietnam, was an accessory to these crimes. There was no lack of evidence for the North's ruthlessness, or its ideological commitment to dominating the South. Leftists didn't care, because their goal was to shame America for its "sins," not because they cared about the Vietnamese or even peace itself.
Today, the Left's goal is more or less identical, except instead of portraying American servicemen as bloodlusting animals, they show them as victims. Either way, they use tales of human suffering as commodities which they sell to the American public, hoping that they can be convinced to abandon another ally. Iraqis, like the South Vietnamese, would get slaughtered, and the region could disintegrate into war and mayhem, but "America the imperialist bully" would suffer a grave defeat. As for the innocent who would die — too bad for them.
Given that, putting those thousand crosses next to the Vietnam Memorial is actually quite appropriate. Marcus, if you read this, I'll still take you at your word that you're "all about supporting the troops." If that's true, you're running with a disreputable crowd that doesn't give a damn one way or another.
When you think of good American priests, think of men like Father Capodanno, recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor. You can read a book about his life by Father Daniel Mode (himself a Navy chaplain) if you want to learn more about him. It's quite inspiring. There is also a foundation dedicated to him, with a short biography. Below is his Medal of Honor Citation:
Rank and organization: Lieutenant, U.S. Navy, Chaplain Corps, 3d Battalion, 5th Marines, 1st Marine Division (Rein), FMF.
Place and date: Quang Tin Province, Republic of Vietnam, 4 September 1967.
Entered service at: Staten Island, N.Y.
Born: 13 February 1929, Staten Island, N.Y.
Citation: For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty as Chaplain of the 3d Battalion, in connection with operations against enemy forces.
In response to reports that the 2d Platoon of M Company was in danger of being overrun by a massed enemy assaulting force, Lt. Capodanno left the relative safety of the company command post and ran through an open area raked with fire, directly to the beleaguered platoon. Disregarding the intense enemy small-arms, automatic-weapons, and mortar fire, he moved about the battlefield administering last rites to the dying and giving medical aid to the wounded.
When an exploding mortar round inflicted painful multiple wounds to his arms and legs, and severed a portion of his right hand, he steadfastly refused all medical aid. Instead, he directed the corpsmen to help their wounded comrades and, with calm vigor, continued to move about the battlefield as he provided encouragement by voice and example to the valiant marines.
Upon encountering a wounded corpsman in the direct line of fire of an enemy machine gunner positioned approximately 15 yards away, Lt. Capodanno rushed a daring attempt to aid and assist the mortally wounded corpsman. At that instant, only inches from his goal, he was struck down by a burst of machine gun fire. By his heroic conduct on the battlefield, and his inspiring example, Lt. Capodanno upheld the finest traditions of the U.S. Naval Service.
He gallantly gave his life in the cause of freedom.
"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." (John 15:13)
The above quotation is from St. Thomas, who in the Summa answers the question "Whether a betrothal is a promise of future marriage?". That's a most interesting phrase.
More to the point: in "Whether a betrothal can be dissolved?", Thomas discusses many of the questions people brought up in the previous post about the Georgia man who intends to marry his troubled bride-to-be, despite ample evidence that she might be nuts. Fornication, fidelity to a promise, etc., were all discussed by Thomas eight centuries ago. Why would anyone need another theologian?
